Because they clearly thought that they were definitely gonna lose in court on vagueness grounds. The state evidently re-evaluated its position from an initial "we can defend this law in court as constitutional & win" at the outset of the suit to "it's clear we're gonna lose if this case goes ahead so let's settle every substantive matter before us in the plaintiff's favor so we can at least technically claim to the public that we didn't lose in court." This honestly may have been the approach from the outset: they were always gonna inevitably lose no matter what, but they at least already got as much effective time as they could get out of using the law to play to the base.
